"Finally, I just have to say that it would be extremely ironic if the current vegetable-in-chief got us into World War III because he has some vaguely-remembered personal (or was it financial?)" -- that kind of statement is why I don't read Matt Taibbi! If you are really concerned about WWIII (and we should be), then that kind of statement is hardly a constructive thing to write!
So, what would he wish us to do, while Russia continues to bomb Ukraine, has taken about 1/4 of their territory, and is bringing in 100,000 North Koreans to sacrifice on the front lines? As long as Putin is willing to use nuclear weapons, there is little stopping him from taking all of Europe, just as Hitler tried to do; and 70-85 million people died.
Pat, point taken. the vegetable-in-chief line was too emotional. I should have said something like a president whose mental powers are demonstrably reduced AND who is a lame duck whose party's attachment to foreign wars has just been repudiated by the American electorate AND who has had some very questionable family business ties with Ukraine that potentially compromise his decision-making. Is that better?
On the second question, I assume you mean what would I have us do? I'd remind you that the USSR won the Second World War and lost about 25 million soldiers and civilians. They paid the highest price. Russia was invaded twice in the 20th century from the west (meaning, through Ukraine); what made us think they were going to accept a military alliance that was specifically designed in the Cold War to fight the USSR, parking its troops and weapons on the Russian border? And as far as Ukraine's territory goes, I think the American view covers a very thin slice of history. Ukraine and Russia have a complicated relationship that goes back at least a thousand years. I'm talking about people on the ground, some of whom speak Russian and have Russian cousins. This is MUCH more complicated than just a set of borders on the latest map that's been printed. FINALLY, every president that has sat across the table from Putin has found him rational and calculated. Now, because it's convenient to our narrative, he's a deranged Hitlerian figure whose only goal is European conquest for which he's comfortable employing nukes? Really?
BUT, in WWI, was a family squabble, and the interlock treaties worked in a near vacuum. Resulting in the European 'center' pushing out...
WWII was like Gulf War II the echo of GW I, with a power 'locked in' due to losing its Empire. Russia has no real economic resource issues that the Weimar Republic or the Nazis had to deal with. And the Soviets 'won' WWII as they were the primary target of the Nazis and were supported by the capitalist 'Allies' with material, AFTER taking the eastern half of Poland.
Your argument, I think, fails in that Germany and its 'small and virtually insignificant allies' of WWI and definitely in WWII pushed as a single country... Luxembourg isn't going to invade Russia. If NATO had wanted to invade... then maybe 5 years after the re-unification of Germany would have been the time. The ex-Soviet Republics were in some chaos, Ukraine still holding a portion of its nuclear arsenal, etc.
But as for conquering Europe with 'nucs' maybe after Chernobyl that seems doable within 2 or 3 generations, to some. Odd, under the current Climate Crisis, but maybe 'felt' doable. But I don't see most current leaders 'looking' that far ahead, no?
And... what "news" or sources are 'we' to believe;
How America's Accurate Election Polls Were Covered Up - https://www.racket.news/p/listen-to-this-article-how-americas
"Finally, I just have to say that it would be extremely ironic if the current vegetable-in-chief got us into World War III because he has some vaguely-remembered personal (or was it financial?)" -- that kind of statement is why I don't read Matt Taibbi! If you are really concerned about WWIII (and we should be), then that kind of statement is hardly a constructive thing to write!
So, what would he wish us to do, while Russia continues to bomb Ukraine, has taken about 1/4 of their territory, and is bringing in 100,000 North Koreans to sacrifice on the front lines? As long as Putin is willing to use nuclear weapons, there is little stopping him from taking all of Europe, just as Hitler tried to do; and 70-85 million people died.
[World War II casualties - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties)
Pat, point taken. the vegetable-in-chief line was too emotional. I should have said something like a president whose mental powers are demonstrably reduced AND who is a lame duck whose party's attachment to foreign wars has just been repudiated by the American electorate AND who has had some very questionable family business ties with Ukraine that potentially compromise his decision-making. Is that better?
On the second question, I assume you mean what would I have us do? I'd remind you that the USSR won the Second World War and lost about 25 million soldiers and civilians. They paid the highest price. Russia was invaded twice in the 20th century from the west (meaning, through Ukraine); what made us think they were going to accept a military alliance that was specifically designed in the Cold War to fight the USSR, parking its troops and weapons on the Russian border? And as far as Ukraine's territory goes, I think the American view covers a very thin slice of history. Ukraine and Russia have a complicated relationship that goes back at least a thousand years. I'm talking about people on the ground, some of whom speak Russian and have Russian cousins. This is MUCH more complicated than just a set of borders on the latest map that's been printed. FINALLY, every president that has sat across the table from Putin has found him rational and calculated. Now, because it's convenient to our narrative, he's a deranged Hitlerian figure whose only goal is European conquest for which he's comfortable employing nukes? Really?
BUT, in WWI, was a family squabble, and the interlock treaties worked in a near vacuum. Resulting in the European 'center' pushing out...
WWII was like Gulf War II the echo of GW I, with a power 'locked in' due to losing its Empire. Russia has no real economic resource issues that the Weimar Republic or the Nazis had to deal with. And the Soviets 'won' WWII as they were the primary target of the Nazis and were supported by the capitalist 'Allies' with material, AFTER taking the eastern half of Poland.
Your argument, I think, fails in that Germany and its 'small and virtually insignificant allies' of WWI and definitely in WWII pushed as a single country... Luxembourg isn't going to invade Russia. If NATO had wanted to invade... then maybe 5 years after the re-unification of Germany would have been the time. The ex-Soviet Republics were in some chaos, Ukraine still holding a portion of its nuclear arsenal, etc.
But as for conquering Europe with 'nucs' maybe after Chernobyl that seems doable within 2 or 3 generations, to some. Odd, under the current Climate Crisis, but maybe 'felt' doable. But I don't see most current leaders 'looking' that far ahead, no?